Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

[jc456]

I have not read AR5, so I don't know what they they mean by "excess".

fair enough.

BTW, it is what much of the forum discussion is about. What is excess heat and where is supposedly at.

 

[Wuwei]

I have not read AR5, so I don't know what they they mean by "excess".

fair enough.

BTW, it is what much of the forum discussion is about. What is excess heat and where is supposedly at.

If it's a big deal, then in that case I would guess they define excess heat is the heat that presumably causes global warming - AGW or not.

 

[jc456]

I have not read AR5, so I don't know what they they mean by "excess".

fair enough.

BTW, it is what much of the forum discussion is about. What is excess heat and where is supposedly at.

If it's a big deal, then in that case I would guess they define excess heat is the heat that presumably causes global warming - AGW or not.

and thus the thread and how that is possible based on LW radiation. understand now? If one can't prove it, one cannot say it is.

 

[SSDD]

You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.

OK evaporation is a cooling mechanism....radiating is a cooling mechanism. The question is, what exactly, other than incoming solar radiation do you people claim is warming the oceans?

 

[SSDD]

I have not read AR5, so I don't know what they they mean by "excess".

fair enough.

BTW, it is what much of the forum discussion is about. What is excess heat and where is supposedly at.

If it's a big deal, then in that case I would guess they define excess heat is the heat that presumably causes global warming - AGW or not.

and thus the thread and how that is possible based on LW radiation. understand now? If one can't prove it, one cannot say it is.

Proof doesn't rate very high on their list of "scientific" priorities...it is how one tells that they are spouting pseudoscience....pseudosience requires no proof...it just requires that one be gullible enough to believe....

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you want to argue that any substance with an absorption of 90% efficiency is a poor absorber, that's your prerogative. But every scientists will disagree with you.

You don't seem to be able to see through the hype to the real problem with that number...which by the way is less than 90...the GCM's assume wrongly first, that backradition exists, and second that sea water absorbs 100% of it and that it causes warming. Even if you believe back radiation exists, sea water absorbs less than 90% and that can only penetrate 10 microns 10 MICRONS into the surface where it does nothing but cause evaporation...which is a cooling feedback...even if you believe in back radiation...it would be a cooling feedback. It is that sort of misunderstanding of physics that has led to the epic failure of climate models...

There is a reason that with every day the models diverge further away from reality....and the miscalculation of sea water's absorptivity is just one part of it.

The other misconception is that all radiation from CO2 will hit the water, when in reality less than 30% of the energy absorbed is remitted towards the water. When you start doing the math there is simply to much loss to over come the 4/1 ratio required to warm the surface of the ocean at night or when there are clouds. The 10 micron average penetration leads to evaporation of surface tension water cooling the surface layer more than it is warmed at night. The math simply doesn't work out in the alarmists favor.

Hey, wait a second. AR5 claims 93% of the "excess heat" is absorbed

What exactly is "excess"?

 

[Wuwei]

OK evaporation is a cooling mechanism....radiating is a cooling mechanism. The question is, what exactly, other than incoming solar radiation do you people claim is warming the oceans?

You are confused. By your (faulty) logic the incoming solar radiation should cool the ocean because it warms it and thereby causes evaporation which cools the ocean. As I said before, you don't understand the complexity of the problem. Overall it is simple. Incoming solar radiation heats the earth. And backradiation from the moist air or by other greenhouse gasses is what keeps the planet from losing as much heat as it would if no green house gas were present. The dynamics of exactly how that happens is way too complex for you or me to cover in all it's detail.

Furthermore, don't refer to me as "you people" because I am neither a denier nor a warmer. I have no idea about the chaos of the atmosphere and weather. I am not trying to promote any conclusions. I am simply saying that your version of science is bad, and not clearly thought through at all.

 

[SSDD]

You are confused. By your (faulty) logic the incoming solar radiation should cool the ocean because it warms it and thereby causes evaporation which cools the ocean.

That has to be one of the stupidest things ever uttered on this board....So you are saying that if I set a pot of water on an eye on my stove, that I am actually cooling the water? Is that what you are claiming?

As I said before, you don't understand the complexity of the problem. Overall it is simple. Incoming solar radiation heats the earth.

Sorry guy...not happening. The inevitable consequence of more CO2 trapping more heat in the atmosphere would be a tropospheric hot spot.....not happening and a million radiosondes say so.

And backradiation from the moist air or by other greenhouse gasses is what keeps the planet from losing as much heat as it would if no green house gas were present. The dynamics of exactly how that happens is way too complex for you or me to cover in all it's detail.

There is no back radiation...and no heat trapping by so called greenhouse gasses. There is an atmospheric thermal effect that is larger than the claimed greenhouse effect, but it is not dependent upon the composition of the atmosphere beyond what each individual component adds to the mass of the atmosphere.

Furthermore, don't refer to me as "you people" because I am neither a denier nor a warmer. I have no idea about the chaos of the atmosphere and weather. I am not trying to promote any conclusions. I am simply saying that your version of science is bad, and not clearly thought through at all.

You believe in the magic therefore you are a warmer whether you care to admit it or not. And I have no "version" of science...I have reality and the reality is that the models based upon "your version" of physics have failed epically while what I have predicted since this whole hoax has begun has come to pass....no tropospheric hot spot which would be the inevitable and inescapable result of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

 

[Wuwei]

That has to be one of the stupidest things ever uttered on this board....So you are saying that if I set a pot of water on an eye on my stove, that I am actually cooling the water? Is that what you are claiming?

Hey, you said it, not me.

There is no back radiation...and no heat trapping by so called greenhouse gasses.

Every physicist, both warmers or deniers will flatly disagree with you.

You believe in the magic therefore you are a warmer whether you care to admit it or not. And I have no "version" of science...I have reality and the reality is blah blah blah.

Your hubris is dragging you down. If you think all physicists who understand backradiation are "warmers" and are out of touch with reality, then you are clearly out of touch with reality. It seems you don't really understand science at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh wow, the OP is talking about the laws of physics, and I posted what the largest Physicists Scientific Society in the world has to say about AGW, and you call them a cult. LOL

They said NOTHING specific about the ability to sink LWIRadiation into the oceans now did they? In fact "they" didn't actually say a thing. This is a pro-forma front office creation of memo that has (to my knowledge) never been offered to the Society members for approval or comment..

The OP is correct to a large extent. But doesn't explain how the ice melts in my glass in a warm dark room.
Heat has 3 common modes of transport. Conduction, Convection, and Radiation from IR..

And the oceans STILL warm with the surface temperatures. It just means they are not efficient in sinking the CO2 induced warming at all.. Which pretty much makes Trenberth look stupid AGAIN for leaping to explanations and conclusions that are less than flimsy and unsupported AGAIN..

 

[flacaltenn]

You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.

OK evaporation is a cooling mechanism....radiating is a cooling mechanism. The question is, what exactly, other than incoming solar radiation do you people claim is warming the oceans?

Radiative heat transfer is generally bidirectional. but in the case of H2O, incoming IR will not penetrate to any extent. So in terms of Radiative heat transfer with the atmos, it's close to a big total net loss.

Just like on firm land, the ocean loses some surface heat through both conductive heating and Long Wave radiation.. So what? The ocean surface will eventually equalize to general mean changes in the atmosphere thermal content. Even in the absence of any Radiative IR flux..

This topic just points out that the ocean is not accepting and eating all that down-dwelling CO2 thermal radiation that you deny exists. That's a losing position for you -- denying basic radiative physics -- and I have NO interest in going down that rathole with you again..

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate Change

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Climate Change Commentary
(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.

The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

So, here is what the physicists state. Perhaps ol' Silly Billy thinks he smarter than all these men and women put together. Presently, this statement is under review, and even though the people reviewing it include, Christie, Lindzen, and Curry, I bet the statement they finally deliver is stronger than this.

I think it's HYSTERICAL that they waited 3 years to correct the goofs in their original statements. Especially leaving water vapor out as a GHouse Gas...

Maybe the suits in the front office should have run it by a Physicist for review..

 

[SSDD]

Hey, you said it, not me.

You claim that incoming solar radiation is cooling the ocean...what's the difference?

Every physicist, both warmers or deniers will flatly disagree with you.

And a not so many years ago practically every doctor in the world, including gastroenterologists would have disagreed with me when I said that my stomach ulcers were not caused by stress....consensus is not a scientific term and has little to do with science and much to do with group think and politics.

Your hubris is dragging you down. If you think all physicists who understand backradiation are "warmers" and are out of touch with reality, then you are clearly out of touch with reality. It seems you don't really understand science at all.

Got any observed measurements of back radiation? Something that is not the product of a mathematical model?

 

[SSDD]

and I have NO interest in going down that rathole with you again..

I understand...making claims about a physical phenomenon that you believe exists, but can provide no observed, measured examples that do not come from mathematical models must be frustrating....why subject yourself to it?

 

[Crick]

You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.

OK evaporation is a cooling mechanism....radiating is a cooling mechanism. The question is, what exactly, other than incoming solar radiation do you people claim is warming the oceans?

Radiative heat transfer is generally bidirectional. but in the case of H2O, incoming IR will not penetrate to any extent. So in terms of Radiative heat transfer with the atmos, it's close to a big total net loss.

Just like on firm land, the ocean loses some surface heat through both conductive heating and Long Wave radiation.. So what? The ocean surface will eventually equalize to general mean changes in the atmosphere thermal content. Even in the absence of any Radiative IR flux..

This topic just points out that the ocean is not accepting and eating all that down-dwelling CO2 thermal radiation that you deny exists. That's a losing position for you -- denying basic radiative physics -- and I have NO interest in going down that rathole with you again..

So, what happens to the IR that strikes the ocean surface?

It all gets absorbed by the very opaque surface.

Some goes down by mixing and conduction. Some goes up by evaporation and conduction. Does any of it disappear? Does any of it, at that moment, escape to space? No and no.

What else heats the ocean? SW and conduction/convection. All of that, of course, takes place at or very near the surface and conduction/convection would be affected by increases in air temperature. Other mechanisms vertically mix the ocean.

So... where do you get the idea that you've disproved the deep ocean is warming? The first thing I'd think you'd want to address if you were going to try to do so would be the actual direct measurements that show the deep ocean to be warming. Talking about the inefficiency of transfer by IR doesn't make those direct temperature measurements go away.

 

[Wuwei]

You claim that incoming solar radiation is cooling the ocean...what's the difference?

You claim that backscattered IR cools the ocean. That's equivalent to you making a claim that any incoming radiation cools the ocean. That is how stupid your claim is.

And a not so many years ago practically every doctor in the world, including gastroenterologists would have disagreed with me when I said that my stomach ulcers were not caused by stress....consensus is not a scientific term and has little to do with science and much to do with group think and politics.

So you want to disagree with Max Planck, Einstein, every physicist for the last 100 years, and a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. You should pull the plug on your hubris.

Got any observed measurements of back radiation? Something that is not the product of a mathematical model?

It's a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. Do you have any observable measurements or theory or mathematical model that says backradiation is not valid in quantum mechanics? Maybe you have a theory that replaces quantum mechanics. If so, I'm curious to what it is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate Change

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Climate Change Commentary
(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.

The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

So, here is what the physicists state. Perhaps ol' Silly Billy thinks he smarter than all these men and women put together. Presently, this statement is under review, and even though the people reviewing it include, Christie, Lindzen, and Curry, I bet the statement they finally deliver is stronger than this.

I think it's HYSTERICAL that they waited 3 years to correct the goofs in their original statements. Especially leaving water vapor out as a GHouse Gas...

Maybe the suits in the front office should have run it by a Physicist for review..

That's not as bad as waiting until AR5 to tell us that the Oceans ate 93% of the "excess heat" whatever the fuck that non-scientific term means

 

[SSDD]

You claim that backscattered IR cools the ocean. That's equivalent to you making a claim that any incoming radiation cools the ocean. That is how stupid your claim is.

]You clearly aren't listening...there is no back radiation...there is no back scatter. Energy moves from cool to warm...not the other way around.[/quote]

It's a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. Do you have any observable measurements or theory or mathematical model that says backradiation is not valid in quantum mechanics? Maybe you have a theory that replaces quantum mechanics. If so, I'm curious to what it is.

Yeah..I have heard it before...And it is clear that you don't have any observed, measured example that isn't the output of a mathematical model....and the second law of thermodynamics hasn't been rewritten to state that back radiation exists...has it?

 

[Wuwei]

]You clearly aren't listening...there is no back radiation...there is no back scatter. Energy moves from cool to warm...not the other way around.]

Heat moves from cool to warm. Radiant energy is swarming all over the place, no matter what the temperature of the emitter and absorber are.

Yeah..I have heard it before...And it is clear that you don't have any observed, measured example that isn't the output of a mathematical model....and the second law of thermodynamics hasn't been rewritten to state that back radiation exists...has it?

Backscatter is totally consistent with the second law. Every physicist - warmer or denier - understands that.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are taking a complex problem and simplifying it to only one point without a full grasp of the whole problem. Evaporation is only one cooling mechanism. The ocean re-radiates energy across a broad spectrum of IR, unlike the narrow spectra of CO2 input. The ocean will never cool below it's ambient temperature because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The unspecified amount of vapor created from any evaporation would act as a further greenhouse barrier since water is a predominant greenhouse gas. That water vapor barrier would further lower the amount of heat the ocean might loose from the short wave radiation from the sun. That complicates the problem to the extent that neither you nor I can make any logical or viable conclusions.

OK evaporation is a cooling mechanism....radiating is a cooling mechanism. The question is, what exactly, other than incoming solar radiation do you people claim is warming the oceans?

Radiative heat transfer is generally bidirectional. but in the case of H2O, incoming IR will not penetrate to any extent. So in terms of Radiative heat transfer with the atmos, it's close to a big total net loss.

Just like on firm land, the ocean loses some surface heat through both conductive heating and Long Wave radiation.. So what? The ocean surface will eventually equalize to general mean changes in the atmosphere thermal content. Even in the absence of any Radiative IR flux..

This topic just points out that the ocean is not accepting and eating all that down-dwelling CO2 thermal radiation that you deny exists. That's a losing position for you -- denying basic radiative physics -- and I have NO interest in going down that rathole with you again..

So, what happens to the IR that strikes the ocean surface?

It all gets absorbed by the very opaque surface.

Some goes down by mixing and conduction. Some goes up by evaporation and conduction. Does any of it disappear? Does any of it, at that moment, escape to space? No and no.

What else heats the ocean? SW and conduction/convection. All of that, of course, takes place at or very near the surface and conduction/convection would be affected by increases in air temperature. Other mechanisms vertically mix the ocean.

So... where do you get the idea that you've disproved the deep ocean is warming? The first thing I'd think you'd want to address if you were going to try to do so would be the actual direct measurements that show the deep ocean to be warming. Talking about the inefficiency of transfer by IR doesn't make those direct temperature measurements go away.

Go and calculate about 1W/m2 being totally absorbed into about 10micron thick ocean layer and cook it for about 4 hours. (HINT: IT's the equiv or KW-hrs of POWER) The amount of thermal energy absorbed will go primarily into evaporation (convection) or be RERADIATED at some other IR frequency as up dwelling LongWave. You "boil off" the heat in that 10u layer or you "reflect" it back into the atmos..

Amount of any mixing depends on sea state and getting appreciable "conduction" into other layers is a ratio or 10microns to the rest of the volume.

This is why the heat lamps at MickeyD's are not true infrared. They are deep red VISIBLE.

You're gonna get a cranial hernia if you continue to BELIEVE that any real down-dwelling IR heating is largely stored in the ocean volume. IF IT IS --- it is from a VERY long equalization with the general mean surface temp of the atmos.. ESPECIALLY since the NET IR heat flow from the surface (water or land) is ALWAYS towards the sky.